[OP]
Member
I've been thinking about adding a #3 smoother. I typically reach for my 4 1/2 smoother for most bench plane tasks but that's a little big some of the time so I'm thinking the #3 will give me more fine work control. Clifton has a pretty nice one, but LN has a bronze #3 for a few bucks more.
Your thoughts? BTW, I do have a #4 but that plane just doesn't click with me, perhaps I need to replace the blade and chipbreaker with a Hock unit (it's a medium old Stanley).
Contributor
Jeff,
I like the #3 for many tasks.
For the choice between an LN and a Clifton, the LN would be my hands down choice if only for the reason of resale price retention.
Now to the #4… If it won't make acceptable shavings with a Stanley blade, a Hock blade is not a magic bullet to improve a plane that might not have the bones to improve.
By "medium old Stanley" do you mean after WW II? Old is relative. What is old for you, could be newer than me.
My feeling is Stanley planes went on a significant down turn in quality during the last part of the Sweet Hart period. My opinions run deep, though they are just my opinions and this thread is not about them.
Tell us more about your #4.
My old type 6 (Late 1880 should qualify as old) takes beautifully thin shavings as well as good n hefty shavings. Though, the way it is currently set up it will start choking on 0.003" shavings. It has a Stanley blade.
A type 10 is currently being fettled that has been able to make some shavings below 0.001". This with two different Stanley blades. It is not consistent across the width. The sole needs a bit more lapping.
With a bit of work, the later Stanley planes can be made to perform well. As cuts were made to the cost of production, craftsmen buying a plane needed to perform ever more adjustments to have a fine plane.
Somewhere along the way, it seems the idea of a plane being a fine woodworking tool was lost. The plane became an item for the home galoot to hack bits of wood off a sticking door that SWMBO was telling him to fix.
This is why I say if you have time but not money, buy an old Stanley (or one of the other quality planes from a century ago) and fix it up. If you have the money and limited time, spring for the plane that is going to let you spend your time working wood right out of the box.
That still holds true with the choice between an LN or a Clifton. There is an added piece in the equation today. That is the retained value of the plane. The LN will likely be able to hold its value better than the Clifton.
jim
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
I have a #3 Bailey with a Stanley iron and chip breaker. The iron is new old stock. It is sharp and it does a great job. It will match my 604 Bedrock with a Hock iron and Clifton breaker.
Neither will match my LN 4 1/2.
For some tasks, the #3 is my choice. It is almost like using a block plane.
Member
Jeff - Christopher Schwarz blogged on this very topic - not on which #3 to buy but the value of the plane to begin with. I wouldn't hestiate for a minute to buy the LN #3.
With skill and tool we put our trust and when that won't do then power we must.
Member
I use the 3, 4 and 4 1/2 depending on the circumstance. I probably use the #3 the most. It's a very useful plane.
Member
Schwarz also wrote an article comparing LN and Clifton planes (I dont remember if Veritas also....) and 2 major items put Clifton off my list...first, he said that some of the Cliftons he used were good out of the box, some required a bit of tuning first (i.e. soles not flat/square, etc.) and second they are made from regular cast Iron, not the ductile Iron that LN and LV use so in the off chance you cat gets into your shop and knocks it to the floor, better chance of breakage than with the LN. I believe you can find the artile on WK fine tools newszine.
That which does not kill you will likely raise your insurance premiums.
Member
How are you supposed to hold a no. 3? I am new to this and have never actually handled one, but I know that I find the no. 4 to be too small for me to handle comfortably because I have my index finger on top of the blade/lever cap. I'd say I have large hands, but not exceptionally large. I find my Lie-Nielsen 4 1/2 with the 55-degree angle frog to be much more comfortable, but I also find it too big to fit into places I want it to fit. I recently got a wooden plane that is a bit smaller than the no. 4 and it is much more comfortable for me. Am I missing something?
Are you supposed to be able to fit your whole hand behind the blade/frog?
Sorry to hijack the thread with such an elementary inquiry.
[OP]
Member
Thanks for all the feedback.
First and foremost, I bias to LN for the reasons stated here, they hold up well for resale and I know they are good right out of the box. The clifton bench planes have not impressed me all that much, although I do know that they can perform really well when tuned.
My Stanley is a 70's vintage. I replaced the handles and flattened the sole, as well as tuned the frog and opening. It makes good shavings but for in all honesty mostly subjective feeling, it just doesn't have the feel in the hand that my LN planes do. However, I will admit that to compare the #4 Stanley to the #4 1/2 ductile iron is totally unfair.
I looked on the wkfinetools site to find anything by Chris Schwarz on the #3 and didn't have any luck. Will keep digging, but I'm pretty well convinced that I need to have a #3
Member
Often I hold my #3 like a block plane.
It would not replace any plane in my collection, however I would hate to lose it. Sometimes it is the plane to use.
The 4 1/2 LN is a special plane.
Member
I was always under the impression 'no.' It is typical (recommended?) that your index finger be free to either adjust the depth on the fly or resting on the blade. A grip not unlike used on a back saw.Originally Posted by Zach England
Member
I use all my metal planes with my index finger over the top. I think that is how they were meant to be used.
Member
Jeff - here you go:
http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com...Fast+Work.aspx
With skill and tool we put our trust and when that won't do then power we must.
Contributor
Totes for many of the planes changed over the years. I find some of the early totes even on the larger planes a little cramped for holding with all my fingers..
Often, my little finger is out straight and my index finger is curled up against the frog or out along the blade.
For a #2, holding it is like in the link that Rick posted.
On some of my planes with the large handle like a #5 or bigger, the bottom curve has been opened up and the toe of the tote has been filed down. On some of the later replacement handles like, the last rosewoods before the flattening of the sides, the removal of a little wood in the top and bottom curves allows me to get all five fingers comfortably around the tote.
jim
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
No. You can if you want to and physically capable of fitting all four fingers behind the frog. Normally you extend the index finger and let it rest on the frog/blade. Relax the finger, do the rest of holding and controlling with the rest of three fingers on the handle. Even for larger planes, it's the same. Exception is low angle planes. Newer ones do normally have slightly larger handles to accommodate all four fingers and there is enough room to settle comfortably for the most part.
Member
Dangit, now I am going to have to get ANOTHER plane. So if I am going to get a small smoother, would a no. 2 or a no. 3 be the best first purchase? I've been wanting to try a Clifton plane and Clifton makes a no. 3.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote